Posted
by
CowboyNealon Friday October 29, 2004 @12:35AM
from the states-rights-suddenly-matter-again dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"

Unfortunately it won't hurt him. The Democrats seem to be a bit slow on jumping on all the "flip-flopping" (I hope I never hear that word again after tis election) that the President does and the Republican are too good at redirecting the public's attention when Bush does something stupid.

Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.

Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

This isn't a flaimbate or anything but why don't gays create their own churches which respect and tolerate gay marriage? I mean really, their are so many denominations as it stands one more couldn't hurt. Why not create their own denomination which recognizes their marriage on religious grounds?

That's not the problem. The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.

Effectivly the state (government) discriminates between long-term commmitted homosexual couples and long-term commmitted heterosexual couples based only on thier relative gender; last I checked sexual discrimination goes against fundamental issues of human rights.

Any body (church) can say "yep, you're married, you may now kiss the other person", but if the government won't say "yep, we see you're married, so you get x, y and z privileges" then the value of the marriage is legally naught (even though perhaps religiously significant).

The solution to the problem is simple, SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. The state can recognize a union between any two people (even regardless of wether either person is already unioned with another), giving the privileges presently associated with marriage. The church can recognize a marriage between any two people (or, unlikely, more) but without any connection to the state.

People can get neither, one, or both, depending on thier wishes; and of course grandfather existing recognized marriages into a state recognized union.

While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.

A heterosexual couple who can't breed (infertility of whatever form) is disabled, not disordered. This is sort of like saying that because a human can't see, that he isn't human anymore. The nature of humans is to be able to see, but we do have disabled humans who cannot.

A homosexual couple's nature is not to be able to procreate, while a heterosexual couple's nature is to be able to procreate. A homosexual couple who cannot procreate is not abnormal, while a heterosexual couple who cannot procreate is

While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.

Actually, author Jonathan Rauch [indegayforum.org] makes the case in his book that one of the principal reasons that we have marriage -- completely ignoring the "shouting points" of love, children, etc. -- is that a couple making a promise to take care of each other in hard times is a boon for society in general, since it means that support networks like extended fami

I guess that's a point, I hadn't considered that before. But I'm not sure that it's valid to say that committed partner relationships lead to a lower cost for the state.

For example, may people currently get married either as a result of, or in preparation for, having children. Children generally go to school. Schooling is generally paid, or at least subsidised by the state, and I think I'd be fairly safe to say that it costs more to send a child through the school system, than it does to keep an adult h

I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue. Quite a few of the "benefits" of marriage are things that allow a man to provide for his wife and family while allowing the woman to be a primary care giver for the family.
While I realize that a "stay-at-home Mom" isn't necessarily a politically correct concept these days, it is still the intent of the institution of marriage. Many of our laws concerning marriage were intended

This isn't a flaimbate or anything but why don't gays create their own churches which respect and tolerate gay marriage? I mean really, their are so many denominations as it stands one more couldn't hurt. Why not create their own denomination which recognizes their marriage on religious grounds?

>Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

I'm sure that's true. It's also true that most people that are opposed to "gay marriage" are so opposed for religious reasons. Those that are in favor of the concept of gay marriage (call it a civil union or whatever) are not interested in barging into your local parish and demanding that God recognize their vows, nor are they interested in destroying "family values". The gay community just wants the same legal status as a heterosexual couple when it comes to patient's rights, wills, etc. The fact is that gay couples already have weddings and adopt children, and have done so long before any city or state started giving them marriage licenses. This "gay marriage" debate has nothing to do with that. This is all about the special secular legal status that a married couple gets if they're one male and one female, but no other combination thereof.

The only way to give them this legal status and still satisfy the religious folks (who are convinced that a homosexual couple getting married somehow affects them in a negative way, but won't share the mechanism) is to seperate the notion of religious marriage from that of secular marriage.

For once in his life, I agree with president Bush about something. Civil Unions are a good idea. I can't imagine why he was trying to ammend the constitution if that's really what he wants.

That said, I don't think the notions of two "seperate but equal" legal statuses for the same thing is a good thing either. Let's define "marriage" in the churches and define "civil unions" in the legislature. I'm aware that means scrapping the word "marriage" from the law books, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps we can clean up the alimony laws while we're at it to get rid of this pre-nup bullshit.

BTW. I don't speak for the gay community... I'm a heterosexual that believes in equal rights for all.

I don't have a problem of getting the state of of marriage, and simply conferring "civil union" status on religious marriages in addition to their own secular process (for convenience).

However, I don't think that will ever happen, and you're just playing semantics at that point anyway, so I see no real value in it. Either the unions are equal or they are not, and if they are, there is no need to change the name. What religions do is up to religions, and if you're a gay catholic, you still can't make the

>you're just playing semantics at that point anyway, so I see no real value in it. Either the unions are equal or they are not, and if they are, there is no need to change the name.

It definately is a semantic play... but remember that semantics is the core of politics. The words you use to talk about something influence how you think about it. If a word has certain connotations that are inappropriate given the usage, it's appropriate to look for a new word. In this case, the word "marriage" has religi

Marriage can still be a legally binding institution. Let the religious institutions write up contracts that abide by their beliefs. The couple can choose their church and their marriage contract. That way, if the Catholics don't want to allow divorce or whatever, they simply write it into the contracts. You can even specify the church as arbiter in the contract and let them handle things like divorce hearings. The law becomes more flexible to serve the diverse religious needs of the people.

Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.

Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

Finding a lifelong partner seems to be a human characteristic. It was religion that formalized it into some

I don't get this ownership deal that keeps being brought up. It seems that somewhere there is a misconception concerning marriage. There is no indication in the New Testament (I can't speak for the Koran as I haven't studied it) that ownership of a woman is transferred from father to husband in a marriage. The only concept of ownership is in 1 Corinthians 7:4.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

All Christian churches use the Bible. When Jesus was alive, the Old Testament was already intact, however the New Testament was put together by what is now the Catholic church. Until Martin Luther, ALL Christian doctrine came ONLY from the Catholic church, and even later, after the Reformation, many Protestant churches still depended on teachings that were derived from teachings from the Catholic church.

The Catholic church of the time was focussed around various forms of Mithraism and Zoroastrian-like groups, although it later absorbed the cult of Vesta (ever heard of Vestal Virgins?) and half a dozen others before conquering much of the Christian movement by a kind of internal takeover. The canon existed pretty much as the Protestants use it long before the Catholic Church officially endorsed it - and IRL their endorsement varied from accepted practice and was varied a couple of times.

Well, this sure sounds good, BUT!
You can't possibly follow the liberal beliefs on the religioustolerance site. You can't believe the Bible and believe that it was written by people that were trying to advance their own religious beliefs. In 2nd Timithy 3:16, Paul states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...". Now this is either a true statement or it is not. And if this one statement is not true, then the entire book must be suspect and is therefore not useful.
Why should the liberals be l

The thing with civil unions is that a lot of people don't see a big difference between them and "separate but equal." The only gay people that this really appeases are those who see it as but a step along the way to true equal rights.

As a straight guy this doesn't affect me much, but I hope this shows his hardcore religious following just how strong his beliefs are. Like any other politician he's just doing what he thinks will get him elected, and that's what he always has been doing. Flip-flop is not a te

Bush earlier wanted to amend the constitution to not allow states to have their own choice as to what constitutes a civil union. Now he is saying quite clearly that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman but the actual legal definition should be left up to the states. It is a change of position. Is it a change in the way he personally feels about gay marraige? No. Is it a change of his political position on state's rights? Yes. So, yes it is actually quite the flip flop. Quite the meticulous

Bush earlier wanted to amend the constitution to not allow states to have their own choice as to what constitutes a civil union.

You are being misleading.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) prohibits states from using the word marriage for anything other than the union of a man and a woman. However, the FMA clearly and deliberately allows states to define civil unions in any manner they choose. If states want to give civil unions to homosexual couples the FMA permits them to do so. If Bush supports the F

A flip-flopper is someone who can't make up their mind where they stand on an issue. This week it's good one way, the next week it's good another way. Not the sort of behaviour you want from a President when the country is a war, no matter if you think the war is legal/justified or not.

President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so" -- that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."

The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Bush is being inconsistent by supporting the amendment while claiming that he is for civil unions.

By "Constitution", you must mean the Defense of Marriage Act, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. The DoMA, on the other hand, does explicitly define the rights of states; states don't have to accept the legal marriage of gays from one state to another.

The problem with this is that Article 4, Section 1 [findlaw.com] of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit) states, basically, that all public "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" in one state convey to all others. When Bush mentions a

Actually, if the FMA were passed, it would outlaw the recognition of civil unions as well. The phrase "legal incidents thereof" is referring to the benefits that come as part of the marriage package (e.g. joint tax filing, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, etc.). This means that, while a state could legalize civil unions (or even marriage), neither other states nor the federal government would have to recognize the rights that the state bestowed on the couple. (Which me

So can a single person enter into a marriage between a man and a woman, as well as a "civil union"? Isn't one of the main benefits of states recognizing each other's liscences that it helps prevent serial bigamists?

The government should deal only in civil unions, and stop recognizing "marriage" altogether. It's too politically charged, too religiously entangled, and, frankly, too personal for the government to be messing with. Let people define their own marriages as they see fit, and if they want the legal benefits of a civil union, they can apply for one -- but they're separate things. Signing civil union documents would be a standard part of most marriage ceremonies, but neither would necessitate the other.

Yeah, it's just a linguistic trick, but it's really only the language that's hanging up the fundies in the first place.

(OT: If the doc your sig links to is supposed to justify the Iraq war, it's a lousy justification. I'm sure it would take you about 20 minutes to find some loon in northern Idaho who blows off the UN, cheats the government, and would really like to build a biological weapon, and he has about as much ability to follow through on that as Saddam did.)

As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.

Thanks for this post! I disagree with your ideas on marriage, and thus agree wholeheartedly on getting the state out of the marriage business. We should not need to play politics or fight each other in court for each of us to live marriage as we believe it ought to be lived. Like other matters of morality and faith, it should be an individual decision, and one where we attempt to sway each other not with laws, but with discussion (in the honorable tradition of my namesake, Paul [virginia.edu]).

The first administration to fund it?
Stem-cell research has only been around for a few years.
Oh yeah, funded it real good. There were so many rules and regulations on stem cell research that it made it practically worthless.
That's just Kerry propaganda right? Go look up a few of the scientists who actually TRY to do the research under current conditions.
~X~

Wow - That's the sign of a really desperate man. Only minutes ago pollster Zogby [zogby.com], on the Daily Show [comedycentral.com], stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election. I think GWB is seeing the writing on the wall.

Zogby said Kerry would win for two reasons: the candidates are essentially tied to within the margin of error, and undecideds usually vote against the incumbent. If you notice, 48+46 doesn't add up to 100.

But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.

If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?

Vote Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.

Read why [badnarik.org] you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.

What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this [badnarik.org] anyway.

Exactly. If we wanted to reward childbearing the easiest way would be to reward childbearing, not some insane hypothetical reason for approving marriage, which never once appeared until this whole gay marriage thing came up.

It's really amazing how far some people will go in an attempt to make their stance anything but pure bigotry. Suddenly, marriage is about having kids. Hey, you loons, if marriage is about having kids, why do we let people get marriage and have contraceptives? Why do we let infertile cou

I used to vote Libertarian every election. But not this time. Badnarik has some nutty idea's I don't aggree with. He is the worst Libertarian canidate in some time. This is from his wikipedia entry which was the first thing to come up in google with a search of Badnarik and atrophy.

On his website, prior to recieving the Libertarian Party's nomination, Badnarik has proposed that in order to make prison guards have safer jobs, violent felons should not be allowed to exercise for their first month, so that th

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so....

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman.

"Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able

"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.

No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.

There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.

Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.

If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...

If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.

I love how all the discussion of marriage leaves out the most important part: children. At the end of the day, the traditional family has been society's way of creating social units to ultimately raise the next generation.

I love how all the discussion of marriage leaves out the most important part: children. At the end of the day, the traditional family has been society's way of creating social units to ultimately raise the next generation.

You're too late, that particular horse bolted back when they allowed divorce. The traditional family myth harks back to a time when parents regularly died in their thirties; so broken families have always been a part of the overall picture of society, whether through death, infidelity, or separation.

I don't think anyone really believes him when he says this. He's just trying to appear less evil to uninformed undecided voters. His base knows he's with them in sending gays to hell and his opponents know he's just saying whatever it will take to get him re-installed in office.

Incidentally, being against LGBT rights now is like being against Civil Rights in the 50's. I'm looking forward to the time when we can all look back on this as another shameful hurdle we overcame.

The problem with Bush annoying some of the GOP is this: who will they go and vote for? Is there a candidate who is seriously against this entirely?

Another example: say Bush said abortion should be kept legal. That would seriously PO a large segment of the GOP. But where would they go? Bush can say whatever the hell he likes, and the GOP members are still stuck voting for him, because there isn't any alternative for fundamentalist busy bodies (not that all the GOP are).

So, according to your definition, women past the age of about 50 http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=94F4 C769-0E44-4BA5-AF20E9E264577527 [mayoclinic.com]
should not be allowed to marry? A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry? These situations preclude procreation, and thus, according to the extreme views you espouse above would preclude any reason to marry, other than for some sort of monetary benefit (I guess).

So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.

Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.

It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.

A good friend of mine is 22 year old heterosexual. She is steral and will never have children. If she wants a child she is going to have to do it the same way a homosexual couple would. Are you suggesting she should not be allowed to get married because she is not capable of giving birth?

If a state decides that 1any + 1any is an acceptable union, what's the point in limiting this to just sets of two?

There are lots of reasons to allow gay marriage but not polygamy. You just haven't thought it through yet.

Issue #1: Partner A is incapcitated. Who will make decisions about his or her medical care? If there is only one other person in the marriage, then Partner B. If there is a Partner C then there must be a vote and there is potential deadlock. Perhaps we should allow marriages only bet

These are your "issues" with polygamy? How to divide the estate, who makes decisions about medical care? If those are the best you could come up with, maybe you haven't thought it through yet.

So, when the wife dies the husband gets the estate. Great. But what happens when the husband dies? By your logic, every couple should only be allowed to have one child, because otherwise it make figuring out the inheritance too complicated.

Oh, shit! What if they both die childless and all four of their parents are st

Well, I don't really feel strongly about polygamy, I'm just pointing out there are reasons that allowing polygamy is more complicated than allowing gay marriage. Your argument is logically fallacious, because it assumes that monogamy has to be perfect in order to be better.

WRT your argument about chidren in the case of both partents dying, it doesn't hold water. Because children don't play much role in the economic success of adults (quite the opposte). This makes dividing the estate evenly fair.